Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the clerk for that clarification. To the contents of the motion itself in relation to loss of confidence in Ms. Roberts as a Conflict of Interest Commissioner, I question, Mr. Chairman, what the results of this motion would mean if it were to pass. Keep in mind that the investigation of Ms. Roberts and her conduct is all related to an inquiry or to an investigation she had done into a Member and her report based on that investigation to this House.

If we accept that report and do not question it, I do not understand how we can question the conduct of Ms. Roberts. If we question the conduct of Ms. Roberts, we then question the contents of that report. It seems to put back into question whether or not there was a proper investigation done on the conflict of interest complaint itself.

It seems to me that if the motion was to go forward and Ms. Roberts was incompetent, which this motion suggests, then she did not do a competent report and therefore, there is a need for another investigation into the Member's conduct as a Minister.

We heard earlier from the Law Clerk that simply by the Member resigning does not stop the process, so it follows that if this was the report and we accepted this, we then accept the fact that there is further need for an investigation into the Member's conduct by whom we would consider a competent Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

I have a problem accepting that. Personally, I have read the contents of the report and the conduct, as it suggests, of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I have never had any personal problems with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and her ability to deal with my personal files.

What I find in the report is not enough for me to suggest that I should lose confidence in her, in particular, if I accept the fact that she is still capable of ruling on an investigation or a complaint, which we seem to have accepted.

Now, as I said, Mr. Chairman, I need some clarification here as to whether or not this suggests that there is further need for more complaint. Obviously the original complaint would still be there if in fact we suggest that she was not competent to deal with this complaint. All of the facts that are related to why we are investigating her in the first place relates to her conduct on that particular complaint.

It seems to me that Mr. Rowe's complaint would still be there and would still need to be addressed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.